ML20042E133
| ML20042E133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 03/29/1990 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| REF-10CFR9.7 NUDOCS 9004200198 | |
| Download: ML20042E133 (88) | |
Text
[:
. s.
s 4
7
. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS SION Tk(1&l PERIODIC BRIEFING ON PROGRESS 0F RESOLUTION
~
OF GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES I
LOCati0nl ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND h3k6 MARCH 29, 1990 peg 5S:
67 PAGES NEALR.GROSSANDCO.,INC.
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 Rhode Island Avenue, Northwest Washington, D.C.
20005 (202) 234-4433 f, 9004200198 900329 o *^
PDR 10CFR in;-
PT9.7 PDC 4
1
- 3 s :-
4-DISCLAIMER i
~
.cp
-.1 1
~
This is an unofficial transcript of'a meeting-of 1
i the United - States Nuclear Regulatory Commission held-on f
March 29, 1990, in' the Commission's of fice-at One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.
The meeting was t
open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript j
t; has not been reviewed, corrected or-edited, - and it may contain inaccuracies.
[
's intended solely - for - general
'i The transcript i
informational purposes. -As provided by 10.CFR 9.103, it'. is E
not part of the formal'or informal. record of decision-of the matters discussed.
Expressions ' of opinion in-this i
transcript do not necessarily reflect: final. determination or beliefs.
No pleading or other paper _may be filed with T
the Commission in any proceeding as the result of, or l
addressed to, any statement or-argument contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
l HEAL R. GROSS i
Count RepotTft$ AND TRANSCR10ER$
132: RHoOf ISLAND AVINUt, N.W.
1-(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON. D.C.
20005 (202) 232-6600 -
L t
y_.
-3
. l
' UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA t:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' PERIODIC BRIEFING ON PROGRESS'OF RESOLUTION OF' GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES PUBLIC' MEETING Nuclear-Regulatory Commission' One White Flint North Rockville, Maryland s
I l
L Thursday, March-29, 1990 1
.1 The Commission met'in open session, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m.,
Kenneth'M. Carr, Chairman, presiding.
t COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:
l KENNETH M.
CARR, Chairman of.'the Commission THOMAS M.
ROBERTS, Commissioner KENNETH C.
ROGERS, Commissioner-j JAMES R.
CURTISS, Commissioner l
FORREST J.
REMICK, Commissioner l
\\..
NEAL R. GROSS '-
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23241600
^i
p,
- 5. c e g i; V
J, i. ' -
~2-
=
+
S.
I
' STAFF-SEATED..AT-THE COMMISSION < TABLE::
h:)
- SAMUEL' J. ;- CHILK, Secretary.
' MARTIN MALSCH, Deputy GeneraliCounsel"
-JAMES. TAYLOR; Executive DirectorLfor Operations ERIC--BECKJORD, Director, Of fice :of - Research
-WARREN.MINNERS, Deputy; Director,-RES/DSIR
'CLEMENS-J.. HELTEMES,;Jr.,. Deputy Director, RES-ASHOK-TH ADANI, Director, l Division
.of-LSys' ems -
t
. Technology, NRR
- l 4
mi
)
l t'
i't a g{
- g -
.,[
t*
1 1
q NEAL R, GROSS -
1 COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
- 902) N
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006.-
(M) 232 4000
7 c
'3.
1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S-
/~
.. (.-. )
r.
2 10:00'a.m.
3 CHAIRMAN-CARR:
Good morning, ladies and:
4 gentlemen.
5 The purpose of.today's meeting is for - the 6
Office of Research / staf f to brief the Commission on
~
7 the status of prioritization and resolution of generic
- e 8
safety issues.
9 The Commission was last briefed on this 10 subject on April 25th, 1989 and the Office of-Nuclear 11 Reactor-Regulation'recently briefed the Commission on 12 the status of-industry's-implementation of unresolved
(
13 safety issues.
P 14 Copies of the briefing slides are available-15 at the entrance to the meeting room, t
16 Do any of my fellow Commissioners have any 17 opening remarks?
l L
18 If not, Mr. Taylor, please proceed.
l
~
19, MR. TAYLOR:
Good morning, sir.
This is the
! j, 20 fourth Commission briefing on this subject and. we (i
21 continue to mak? progress and actually. achieved a
<.1 i.,
22 major milestone since the last briefing in that all-m 23 USIs, unresolved safety issues, are now resolved.
,;eh 24 The resolution of generic issues involves 4
(.
25 two major offices.
The prioritization and resolution NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON D.C.20006 ^
(202) 232M i
V 4'
p
-4 1
of each issue is a Research responsibility and the h_
'~
2 imposition-and verification out in the field involves:
3 NRR.
4 Today's briefing is principally devoted to 5
the Research side of that activity, although NRR' is i
'6 represented and can provide. additional informa
'n
'7 since their last appearance on. USI implementation. in 8
February.
1 9
I also note that later this year NRR will i
10 brief and has a briefing plan 'on the overall 11 implementation status of generic safety issues.
12 I will introduce at the table'with mel Warren.
j
('
13 Minners from the Office of Research, Jack Heltemes who
(
14
-recently joined the Office of Research, and on. my 15 right, Eric Beckjord, the Director of the Office of 1
i 16 Research and Ashok Thadani representing NRR.
l l
17 I'll now ask Eric Beckjord to continue.
i z{
18 MR.
BECKJORD:
Mr.
Chairman, I wanted to l
19 comment on the progress of generic-issue resolution.
j d
)
20 The resolution of these i'ssues continues at a high i
~
1 21 rate.
The expected number to be resolved-this year-is I
E 22 16 and in 1939 and in 1988 the numbers were 18 and 16
[
23 respectively.
These rates were exceeded only in one 24 year.
That was 1985.
Taking together 1990 expected,
- h..
25 1989 and 1988, the rate of resolution if substantially NEAL R. GROSS COURT PEPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(302) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
t F.
- 5i 1
higher than~in any other three year period' earlier in p
2
_the program.
- 3 Second point, the rate of generation of new 4
generic safety issues is now low.
The' net increase 1
5 af ter combining issues has been seven since - 1987, 6
seven new: issues'.
The low rate of new issue 7
generation, I think,;'is in part an indication of a 8
maturing technology and in a confirmation.also,
'I'
~f improved industry, saf et'y 9
think, of the indicators o
10 performance which you find in the AEOD perf ormance 11 indicator-reports and the accident precursor. analyses.
12 I think also that the process, the generic r
13 issue program itself, including the work of Research
'14 and of NRR and' of. the industry in implementing. the 15 conclusions, is~an important factor in the record --of
~
16 improved safety performance.
But~I note that' the 17 current trend-does not necessarily predict the future.
18 Inadequate maintenance or aging or declining plant i
19 management performance could lead to an increase in-20 the appearance-of-new issues or repetition of events
[
21 related to old issues.
j' g
22 Third point.
As to the work of resolving q
k 23 the remaining outstanding issues, I expect -i t to j
k 24 continue at about the same level of the last several 3
s t
25 years.in terms of the resources committed and that NEAL R. GROSS -
i 4
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202)234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
(;~
,4
~6-
~ with the - ' and-iff.as ! expected.. f ew~ new= issues arise, j1
[;
. taper off after: fiscal-1991, "2
-the-work would begin to 3
I. note that several important generic saf ety - issues,.
i
~
4 which you're going-to. here about ~ shortly, have;been j
l 5
incorporated in the individual plant examination, such t
6 as decay heat removal and system. interaction.
7 Now, I expect that the people resources;made l
8 available as the.g'eneric safety issue program tapers 1
.i 9
- off, as is 'noW in prospect,; will.take; on added.
10 responsibilities in the' IPE, l including the IPE 11 external events and the containment perf ormance L
12 follow-up.
I also anticipate that'there'will be more
(
13 effort these people would. contribute :to in the' source l
s
~
14 term development for advanced light water re' actors and l
15 advanced non-light water reactors.
l 16 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like now for, 17 Mr. Heltemes to.take over the briefing.
18 MR.-HELTEMES:
Thank you, Eric.
19 (Slide)
Could I have s'lide one, please?
20 Our briefing today really consists of two 21 parts.
The first part is ' an overall perspective on t
22 the status of generic issues and
-t h e n - I ' l l-briefly.
23 summarize the process we use for the resolution -of e
.q 24 generic issues, go through the history and the process
?i
(
}
25 we've made since we last briefed you and over the past.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(2Gr) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
. (2'M) 232-6000
+
q
. 7; 1
.four years., As Jim mentioned, we have resolved all of~
h' talk to.you about the'three 2
the<USIs and we'd like-tot
~
3' USIs that resolved in the past year, then talk about 4
our future schedules to resolve the current GSIs.
5 The second part of the briefing is:to. talk.
6 about the ' status of some selected GSIs and we've f
7 picked-three.
The first is B-56 on. diesel generator-8 reliability.
This is a subject we talked with. the i
f 9
Commission about last -year.
GSI 15,'on radiation 10 effects of reactor vessel supports - this particular.
11 generic issue was prioritized low. and then -~we got-12 additional 'inf ormation and data' from the' HFIR, the 13 high flux isotope reactor operation in' Oak Ridge.and-0 14 since that time ~ it 's been reprioritized' high.
Then.
15 we'll talk about the GSI 105 which is inter -
16-systems LOCA.
This i s' a c o n c e r n,-. an issue that's 17 receiving high priority and high interest within.the 18 staff.
19 (Slide)
Next slide,.please.
20 This chart gives you the six basic steps to 21
-the life cycle of a generic issue.
The first is 22
. identification.
Of course, any organization or 23 individual can identify a generic issue.
Most of the 24 issues come within the staff and the Office of NRR, k
25' AEOD, the regions.
Other issues come from ACRS and, NEAL R.' GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 4
1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTCN, D.C. 20006 (202) N
- l,.
^
81
- 1 indeed, from-the'public.
2 The first step after identification is-3 prioritization.
This consists of several different.
4 4
stages.
One is a very prompt screening _in order ~to
,T 5
determine the risk significance, in-order to allocate 6
resources according to the risk significance.
-And, a
.7 also.during the prompt screening, to s e e i f :: any-8
~immediate action is warranted by the Agency in the-4 9
f orm of an inf ormation notice or.. bulletin: to bring the 10 concern to industry's attention.
11 Then we go on to do a preliminary, but more 12 detailed prioritization ' which results in a - high,
a
{
13 medium, low drop or integration type' activity. During i
,l
.j.
14 this step, we look specifically at the-risk' reduction-a 15 or benefit associated with. resolution of'the concerns..
q 9
16 Primarily -here is
- a. cost benefit type of analysis i
[
17 looking at the risk to public' health and safety and f,
18 the cost in terms of cost.for the industry'as wel1 as
~
1 19 to the staff.
We-also look,for integration in the l
20 overlap or duplication.between issues any placewhere 1
21 we think-the resolution may be inconsistent or.needs i
22 to be consistent with other issues and activities.
If
}
23 we identify such an activity where there is an i
24 overlap, then what we try to_do is integrate those to~
R t
a w
25 assure the consistency of the final end product.
a q
a.
NEAL R. GROSS
.l
>l COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
' [
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
CJX2) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -
(202) 23lM000
'f4'
,1 9-1 The; proposed resolution ~ in. terms of the-T-
'2 prioritization label is sent for_ peer _ review among.the 3
offices.
We receive those comments, we resolve them 4
and then a final'prioritization of high, medium, low 5
drop or integ' ration i s'_ approved by the' office 6
director.
l1 7
7t the 'prioritization scheme gives you a 8
medium or low dro~p or. integrate that -is' suf ficiently 9
low in our priority, we-don't do anymore work'on the--
~
10 issue and've' consider it resolved.
We put it in the-11 resolved = category.
Issues in the high and medium u go -
12 on to the next step-of resolution.
Here we do a task I
13 action plan which has the major milestones and f
K
,f 14 schedules.
The task action plan is coordinated -with f
15 the other offices-and then we proceed to generat'e an
[
16 end product.
An end product may be1a generic _ letter, i
17 a rule, rule revision, SRP, a standard review plan El 18 revision and the associated regulatory analysis and we
~l i
19 take that through the approval chain consisting of l
.j 20
- ACRS, CRGR, the various offices and indeed to the 21 Commission and receive public comment.if it's-a rule,.
-3 22
.a policy statement, an SRP2 revision or a regulatory
[
23 guide.
)
24
- Then, after the necessary approvals are.
f
(',
25 received, then we transfer lead responsibility for the l
NEAL R. GROSS l
court REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 0
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
I (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -
-(202) 232 68)0 t
4
},
l y
l'0 E.
1
. issue to NRR-where ~ i t 's Limpos ed; on >1icensees. '
o 2
Licensees then implement the necessary actions' and thei 13 final step in the.lif e cycle.ist the! verification 4
process by NRR. and the regions Lto assure the proper.
5 implementation.
6
. ( Slide);. 'Next chart, please..
7 The : process of -all GSI i~s' monitored l Land s
8 tracked.: firs t of alli through-GIMCS, theigeneric issue 9
management control. system, which. tracks:.those.through 10 resolution and then GIMCS, ~is integrated with JSIMS,
-11 which. is the safety issue management -sys tem:- which
-/
12
~ tracks =it all the'way.through; verification.'.
Also' all-(~
13 of the - generic: issues are documented-as,:to J their
(
14' prioritization. and technical - concerns' in. NUREG--0933 ;
15 whichiis updated semi-' annually.-
g 16 (Slide) :Next chart,.please'.
17 Current 'prioritization methodology started-18 in 1981 with 369 issues that came f rom ' TMI-and ;- 142 19 issues that existed: in s t a f f ': documents that. were
+
20 documented at - that time, giving -us 1 a total Lof: 511 21 issues in' 1981.
In the last nine ' years,
we've-
_6 H
22 identified 261'. i s s ue s.
So.today we have a. total of 23 772 issues that entered blockJone, if you will,. on:
24 that life cycle I talked about earlier.
.i.
25 (Slide)
'Next chart, please, NEAL R. GROSS
'j COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
<m sue wASHwoTon D.c.aaoas q u asa m
~
11:
1 This' chart and succeeding, charts have l
2 similar type information that was discussed with the 3
Commission over the past three briefings.
I'll ' be
'I 4
focusing on the last column, the-current status, and' 5
any differences between the last time the staff 6
briefed the Commission _in April:of
'89.
3 7
This.particular chart breaks down:those 772
-i l
8 issues that have been identified into safety issues
[-
9 and non-safety issues.
Six hundred ninety-seven of 10 them are considered safety issues, generic 'safet'y 11 issues.
A safety issue is one that affects the public 12 health and safety, it has a risk.
Non-safety issues 13 do not affect the public health and safety, but can-N q
14 affect the efficiency of the-licensing process.
It i
15 can also affect the impact of~our current. regulations.
16 The risks may not change under certain issues, but-the i
17 impact to our licensees may change.
We would' term 18 that a non-safety issue.
1 19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Where does it go then?
If 20 it becomes non-safety, who picks it up?
-e 21 MR. HELTEMES:
It's contained in the program ir 22 and we continue to work on it as resources and time 23 permits.
It's very much part of the generic issue 24 program. but it receives a lower priority since it's
.., s QN
~
25 non-safety.
k NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVENUE N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
- (202) 232-4600
n 12 i
c
>- 1 11
' COMMISSIONER-CURTISS:
Are these issues-made'
~
'~
2 up just__- of medium _ and high priority on-the
(
3 prioritization at this point?
- I 4
MR..HELTEMES:
No.
I'll cover that in the i
i 5
next chart.
I'll go through it at that point.
1 6
COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Could you give me a
/g j
7 tvpical example of a non-safety issue?-
il i
j 8
MR.
HELTEMES:
Certainly.
A. regulatory' h
9 issue, f or ' example, we.had a piping committee _theit' 1
10 went through and looked at the r e g u l a t'o r y -
11 requ'irements.
One of'the regulatory requirements was 4
12 that you had to look at'the combined effects of'a'LOCA
-1
{<
13 and a seismic event.
The piping' committee's feeling y
{
14 was, technically, that it was unlikely that the_. piping 15 would fail during a seismic. event and thu's it may be 16 conservatism that could be reduced in _ the design h
17 requirements.
So, one of the non-safety issues.is to 18 look at that, to see if the regulatory requirements 19 could be modified to reduce some of the conservatism.
20 The risk would not change to public. health and safety, 21 but the impact of our licensees could change'.
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
So the determination 23 of whether it's safety or not is whether there's risk-l 24 involved?-
25 MR. HELTEMES:
That's a primary' criteria.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202)N WASHINGTON D.C.20006
- (202) 232-6000
r.
g
-13; 4
.1 This chart indicates that-we ha'd seven n
ys
-2 additional safetyJissues since ~ the' last - briefing and 3
30-non-safety issues.
All' of those'non-safety issues
- .i -
4 were. associated with the studies.of the Chernobyl 5
event.
They're' documented in NUREG-1251.
- )
6 (Slide).Next chart, please, mn.
s 'l
{
7 Now what I'll do is I'll take the.697 safety 8
issues and break them into.the resolved category and--
9 to be resolved.
-The resolved category is one that I 10 talked about a little bit' earlier.
Youz can-see that 11 we've had 23 issues ~ resolved since the last time we 12 briefed the' Commission and we've had a' reduction'in to 13 be resolved.
Now, the next chart will break this down-s 14 further.
15 (Slide)
Next chart, please.
16 The next chart takes the 633-safety issues 1
17 which are in the resolved category.
As,.I mentioned l
l 1
18
- earlier, if they were prioritized low, : drop - or
.I 19 integrate with other ' issues, then they were termed 20 resolved.
You can see here that have 11 issues that j
21 reached the resolved category by that-means.
j 22 We have an additional 12 issues that were 23 resolved by completion of the resolution stage in the 24 life cycle.
- Now, some of these resulted in new
)l
( '
25 requirements and some did not.
So today we have the NEAL R. GROSS.
i COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
'i 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
}-
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6.
j 1
l r
14 i
1
'. totals there of. 633 generic saf ety-. issues which we
,.f
-2 term resolv'ed.
3 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Does that) 88,. that 4
number 88, that resolution defined in NUREG-0737, does-5 that.mean-that they were resolved.as defined in;that 6
Is that what the meaning of that is?
7 MR'.
HELTEMES:
That's my understanding, yes,-
i 8
sir, that NUREG-0737 was'the basis for resolution.
So:
9 that number has not changed-since that' time period.
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Looks like you found Il that roughly half of the issues are low priority.
~ Is
^
12 that a good. rule of thumb since -the program has been l
13 underway?
{
14 MR. HELTEMES:
Warren', could you commention 15 that?
16 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, I guess I don't~have 17 good statistics on that.
.There's-a large fraction of 18 low priority issues, yts.
19 MR. HELTEMES:
I can come back and give you 20 a perspective, if I-can do it cn.the next chart.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
- Okay, 22 MR. HELTEMES:
(Slide)
May we have the next 23 chart, please, chart number-8?
24 This is the other part of the generic safety.
t' 25 issues, these in the category "to be resolved.'"
You 4
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600 -
y- -
.m.
7.
m
(;..
15' 1
can see. that ~ we have 32. issues, looking. at the lasth l'
2
- column, in the resolution stage,> 16 -high. priority 3-issues, nine medium and seven nearly resolved, and-we 4
have 32 to be prioritized.
The initial screening of.
1
-5 the to be prioritized indicate of the 32,-- three ~ are.
6 high, seven.are medium,-six are low, sixLare dropped, 7
one is'.nearly resolved-and seven'are non-safety.
So 8
that gives you, Commissioner Curtiss,
a little f
9 perspective.
It's seven out of ~32 were termed ' non--
r 10 safety in the preliminary: screening.
That's-not thet 11 final prioritization.
12 CHAIRMAN. CARR:
Refresh my memory t on what-.
.i
~
13 drives one f rom the high Category into the. USI 14 category.
15 MR. HELTEMES:
USI is'a special category of-16 high.
It has special tracking requirements.
We ha've
~
i 17 to report to Congress, and. ' also it carries the 18 connotation. that the plant may require some solution.
19 Normally generic issues are safety enhancement or 20 safety improvement..But.in the. case of the USI, there 21 is some indication that the change in the plant-may be 22 required throughout its li-fetime.
The plant maintains 23.
an adequate margin of safety at this time, but it may 24 not be comfortable with the-remaining. plant life.
s 25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How long have' these NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISt.AND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4 33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -'
(202) 232-4600 s:
I.,a'_
y:
,s 16-
. ?O,
1
'it' ems been ' to be prioritized been: awaiting L to ' be
(,,,
s 2
prioritized?-
3 MR ~. HELTEMES:
Some of them 'a long time.
4 What happens is when we do this initial -screening, 5
what we,do is try'to get the ones we-believe will be g
6 high and ' Ir.edium and' then we put the resources on i
l*
7 prioritizing tho'se particular issues.
Some of the' low 1
8 priority' issues-have.been there quite awnile.
When'I-9 go.back,
it's been five or six. years,
I would 10 estimate.
And one of the things we 'll be doing, 11 hopefully in the near. future, is trying to:go_back and 12 see if 'we can do the necessary work either-to-l
('
13 prioritize it as a non-safety and put it in'the system l-14 awaiting resources for resolution, or L get it dropped-i 15 from the system.
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Didn' t you indicate __-
17 that some of these to - be prioritized, the. initial 18 screening indicated they'might_be high?
19 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes, sir.
Three of them.
20 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How long.'have those 21 three.been waiting?.
22 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Ron, could you look that 23 up?
+
24 MR. HELTEMES:
I think we can probably.get d'
25 that.
NEAL R. GROSS COUFIT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
. (202) 232-6600 l
O, 17_-
l' COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Okay.-
~
'2
--COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Back to the-3' Chairman's' question', I'm not sure I grasped what the ~
4 difference was between'a.USI and a GSI.
Could you'run 1.5 through that again?-
6 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes, sir.
What I was saying.
1 7
is that a USI,. unresolved _ safety issue,..is'within the 8
high' category.
So it's. termed a high' priority. generic:
9 safety issue.
But it also carries with-it if-you put 10 a label of USI 'on i t',
we are obligated to report to' 11 Congress on the status of those ' USIs' and also ' theyL 12 become a USI because there's'a feeling that there may 13 haveztc be=a: modification to the plant at some time.in 14 this plant lifetime, that the plant safety' margins are 15 adequate today, but some. new= requirements.may - be
-j 16 required to keep
't h a t' margin adequate for the i
.J 17 remaining life.
Normally those receive the label of 18 an unresolved safety issue whereas ; the other l high l
19 priority issues are a ;a*ety enhancernent or safety l
t i
20 improvement.
I
^
q 21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
All' right.
' Le t --me 1
-1 22 ask one other question on that.
When you -- is'the 23 difference between doing a cost benefit analysis for-24 one and not the other?
25 MR. HELTEMES:
No, sir.
We will go through, j
]
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHOOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
~ (202) 232-6000 #
~j E
9 18 --
c.
1 prioritize each one'using the 'same methodology and' g
4 2
then they will proceed.into the resolution stage._ We 3
will give higher priority and higher attention to the 4
USIs.--
It's the highest priority within - the
-h i g h '
5 priority.
6 C O M M I S S I O N E R : C U R T I S S :.
GSI fixes our 7
desireable if-cost beneficial but not necessary.
USIs 1
8 are necessary.
Okay.
9 MR. TAYLOR:
That's one way'of saying;it.
10 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes,. sir.
11 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Yes.
We'll come back to 12 that a little later on.
(
13 DOCTOR MINNERS:
In answer to your question, 14 I believe Commissioner Remick's question, of.how long-15 the issues that are waiting to-be prioritized'that are 16 possibly high issues.,.there are three of them.
One of 17 them was identified in June of '87 and the-other two 18 were identified.in April of
'89.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
Let's say what they are.
20 DOCTOR MINNERS:
All right.
21 MR. TAYLOR:
A description just to gi've them.
22 flavor.
23 DOCTOR MINNERS:
'One ~ of them is issue 142-t 24 which is leakage-through electric isolators.
Another 25 issue is s rr.o k e control and manual fire fighting NEAL R. GROSS COU,4T REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) m WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232M
p, 19'--
f
-1
' effectiveness _an'd the adequacy of -
then the.last'one 2
is adequacy of fire barriers.
' These - came out of at 3
Sandia report which was specifically initiated to look 4
at the risk of firesE to: see if'we had-covered 5
everything in fires.
6 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Why would.something 7
identified.potentially as.high in-:'87:not be priority 8
firmly established by now?
9
~ DOCTOR MINNERS:
I guess I can't answer that 10 question.
I can find'out for-you if you want.
A? lot 11 of the process-here is -- time is taken up.in a peer 12 review process.and there ' may be some people. who i
13 disagree with our prioritization: that this - issue (is--
_(
4 14 high.
That sometimes takes a long. time to.. resolve.
15 But, as I say, this particular issue, I' don't 1
16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
'How about even---Syou-17 mentioned that some of them were five _ years old.
I 18 hope those are low priority --
'i 19 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes, sir, i
20 COMMISSIONER _' REMICK:
-- items, but why.do j
d
'I 21 some of the -- I assume that there have:been other low l
22 priority items established much - sooner than' that.
~l 23 Just because they're low, they dcn't wait five years.
i 24 How do you determine what can wait from the standpoint H
25 of putting resources on it and what can't?
Being-kind NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) ZW 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6000 l
e 3
il 4
20 1.
t 11 of.a' compulsive individual, I like to get things kind I.
2 of out of the way.
'I L was_ wondering "why.we 'd go as 3
long as five years not closing those out one way.or 4'
the other-5 MR.-HELTEMES:
I personally agree'with you,
?
6 Commissioner Remick.
A lot of the things we will have-
.n 7
to go_back and look at.
But the-answer is that we do 1
8 the preliminary screening in order :to place - the 9
available resources on those we consider of' the-10 highest priority.
So, if one- -is considered to be?
- 11 dropped or non-safety,_ then it tends to get pushed 12 back further and further.
From time to _ time,_ the 13 staff does - sweep - _ through - these to see -if 'there 's a
14 possibility that there may be a safety concern-that's 15 somehow embodied in any' of these ' and; we've gotten S
~
i';
- 16 confidence that that's not-the case 17 MR. TAYLOR:
We've had a-. big press to' solve Fr 18 the USIs obviously.--
19 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Sure'.
20 MR.
TAYLOR:
because there is deeper 21 connotations.
And the GSI issues, of course, the high 22 priority is as we've made progress - with the people 23 we've had, that's the whole purpose of this briefing, 24 is to show we're making the progress.
.I can't say--
25 and when you look at the issues individually that are NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6600 i
I.: -
g
- 7 4
. 21"
-1 in.the - wrong - category, ycu - say, ' " Hey, that doesn't i
2 override-all that ' you ' re ' doing.
It's something that.
. hen ( the resources are 3
needs to be looked - a t-w 4
available."
That's the way this program is operated.
5 It isn't where we 'd stop ongoing work in another 6
l portion o f - t h e.
of fice or in NRR to solve that 7
particular issue.
8 COMMISSIONER' REMICK:
No, I understand :and 9
you do have limitations.
But I guess I am surprised' 10 that something would;high, potentially might be.a USI.
11' for-all we know---
12 MR.
TAYLOR:
That 's why we worked ~ in the-13 past - two years from nine USIs to zero because w e ---
{
14 and give some examples of those and.we said, ~"We've 15 got to handle these issues.
l 16 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
- Sure, i
17
- Warren, I would. like to know the more-H 18 details on ' that one, why the one in '.87 haven't.been 19 the priority established.
20 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Got that.
21 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
.Can you say anything.
j 22 about whether you think there are -- whether there's a.
j j
23 potential for any USIs being in that group of 32 or.
24 just high priority but not USI?
25 DOCTOR MINNERS:
We periodically review--
i 1
NEAL R. GROSS 1
CodRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
^
'1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000 i
7
~ -
.2 2 !
U 1
oh, of these to be prioritized?
(..
t.
COMMISSIONER' ROGERS:
Yes.
2 3
DOCTOR MINNERS:
I would say they ' re ' not -
4 USIs.
We've looked at that and if they're USIs -~-
~
5 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
There's no USIs.- They i
6 might be high priority, but'no USI.
.7 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Right.
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
So, the argument is not.over; 9
whether it's a USI or high priority, it's more-likely-10 to be whether it's high priority or medium priority,.
11.
MR. HELTEMES:
That's correct.
Yes, sir.
12' DOCTOR MINNERS:
-I'n fact, one of the-issues-l
'1 13 I'm going-to discuss started out as -: a low priority,-
g i
14 okay, and is now a high priority.
And that _may be--
15 that's another possibility of this issue 142, that-it
.]
16 started out as a low priority and then we got!some y.j 17 additional information recently which changed our view-4 18 of it.
But I'll find-out specifica11y'what itwas.-
19 MR. TAYLOR:
Mr.:Speis would like to add --
20 Doctor Speis, would'you~like-to just ' add ' a 21 thought?
22 DOCTOR SPEIS:
Themis Spies.
I have - been 23 involved in this program for awhile and I'd like to 24 add something.
We don't really wait for the' formal 25 process to be completed before we take action.
When NEAL R. GROSS d
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600 4
y
c; o 23 s.
1 something comes up,'sometimes we tak'e action.Within
'a'
- q 2
week ~or within a monthmor,s.few months via notices or.
3
. bulletins or'other things.
The longer term resol'ution-4
' is what we're talking about.
So, I think that's very 15 important too.
'?
6 MR.
TAYLOR:
We is' sue bulletins to solvo 7
immedia'te issues fast. and -- they ' never therefore' 8
unless the resolution changes, they never get caught 9
up in this.
The USIs have been issues _that have'.taken-10 a lot of work to figure out the solutions.
11 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Well, I hear you, but 12 at the same time when I think it's been almost three l
13 years since initial screening -indicated something 14 might be high and we haven't established'whether it's 15 high, medium or low or what 16 MR. TAYLOR: LOkay.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
How do we know if' 18 action should have been taken on ' that one if we 19 haven't determined what priority it is?
20 MR. TAYLOR:
You'll give that rationale when 21 you report the issue.
22 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Right.
23 DOCTOR MINNERS:
I'm sure somebody has 24 looked at it to see if immediate action is required.
25 MR. HELTEMES:
That's part of our screening.
NEAL R. GROSS a
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6600
, _~ __
2
-2C 1-The only - other comment-I. wish.t o give _ on-2 chart 8,
if we could l return -to' that, is the nearly-3 resolved category which I hadn't talked about.
Nearly 4
resolved category is an issue where we have the 5
technical solution in hand.
What we need to do - is -
6 formulate a regulatory end product, do-the regulatory 7
analysis, and take it through:-the approval steps.
j 8
When'you look.at:the overall summary, where:
9 we are today, we have_32, as I mentioned,_ issues in I
10 the resolution stage.
Of those 32, - as-Warren ' will
.i 11 discuss in just a minute, 16 are scheduled -to be i
i 12 resolved this fiscal year and then we have the - rest i
(
13 scheduled over the next few years.--
i
(
- 1
'h 14 At_this particular point, what I'd like to i
15 do is ask Warren to discuss, summarize thecthree USIs l
l]
16 that have been resolved since'the last time that the q
-17 staff briefed the Commission.
These are identified.in j
18 the next chart.
1 19 DOCTOR MINNERS:
(Slide)
Can we have-slide i
20 9,
please?
l 21 The three USIs are concerned with system i
22 interactions, seismic. design criteria and safety
't 23 implications of control systems.
That is really 24 interaction of control systems with safety systems.
- j 25 (Slide)
May I have slide 10?
i NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS -
1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 2N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 23lM600
y y
w V
- 25
)
'l
' System interactions,; we: reported' thatl tof the-
'X 2
LCommission.in a paper.:in AugustE14 of 1989 and.'we have j
3 since~that time.sent outfa' generic. letter to licensees y
N 4
'on.' September 6th of the same year'.. There were'no new-9
-5 requirements laid on licensees,-:but-theigeneric!1etter-l 6
didt discuss --the basis for the resolution so that
- 7 licensees would know-that we had resolved this-.: issue.-
_8 It also took some' of-the ~inf ormation that had 1:>een.
-9 gathered' during -the resolution.- process :which ' was :
10 relevant to the review'of. operating experience,'whicht i
11-
-is something that - licensees are ~ required to do.under-12 one of the' TMI action-items.
I'll' ' discuss that i a '
i 13 little more further.
1 14 The basic thrust of this issue was to see if 4
i 15 we could develop--a method and then require?. licensees.
16-to review their' plant with'. a-me thod :that would 17 discover system interactions
..t h a t-:. w e r e. s i g n i f i c a n t,
18 that would - have. adverse effects.
There.was a large
~
r 19 worry that there were some. hidden interactions in 20 there which could come back-and bite-us'.
J
}
21 Well, we did a large amount of work looking.
i
~
22 for methods, such things,as some-inspections by; walk-
. i r'
23 throughs.
We had analysis methods which included-24 failure modes and ef f ects analyses,- ' deci'sion tables.
i
~
25 We had graphical methods, digraph matrix,-event trees NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 902) 232 6
+
i
..y.
.g 26-e
.1
. a nd-- f aul t
- trees, even the go method.
So, we.
(
'2 determined that there were -methods available to do 3
this and we had some pilot studies'.to see how these 4
would work.
We had'a couple of-licensees go through; 5
and do this for us.
l 6
The results of that indicated ' that such a1 7
review -is-costly.
It takes a lot of manhours. to do' 8
the system interactions'and-that in the cases that we 9
'did, we didn't find ' anything very signi,ficant and in' 10 evaluating the methods, we thought that even if-you 11 did it, there would really be no high assurance that 12 you would discover an adverse system interaction-using l
(
13 any of these methods or that-you'would discover all of-14 them.
So, we said this was not worthwhile to have-15 everybody go through and do a systematic comprehensive l
16 analysis.
We were unlikely to get results that 17 justified the cause.
g
]
18 However, as part of looking at this, we did.
0 19 identify two system interactions,. specific ones tha't 20 we thought people should look at.
One of them - was
- 1 j
21 seismic interactions and we said something ought to be b
~l 22.
done about that and that is being done under the USI.
n n
[l 23 84 6, which is the USI 'f or seismic qualification.of.
24 equipment.
f l
25 The other interaction was the possible.
]
NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
l (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 '
(202) 232 4000 I
27 s
1 effects of water intrusion, flooding inside the plant.
(
2 Not external floods, but pipe breaks inside the plant.
3 But this type of interaction is very plant specific 4
and we couldn't figure out any generic requirement for 5
people to do except to inspect their plant for this 6
interaction.
So, we included this in the individual 7
plant e:: amination program and the generic letter on 8
that 8820 includes' a section or an appendix which 9
tells licensees that water intrusion and flooding 10 should be part of their IPE and to specifically 11 consider that.
12 As a result of this issue, there were some 13 other actions taken.
In reviewing it with the ACRS, 14 they came up with some things that they were still 15 concerned about that we were not and these were 16 labeled, for lack of a better name, I guess, multiple 17 system responses.
We have taken that list and we are 18 now in the prioritization branch, screening those for 19 any possible generic issues.
We also have a plan to 20 develop SRPs for future plants which would discuss how 21 to do the review to be sure that system interactions c'
22 were considered in the design of the plant.
4 j
23
- Then, as I mentioned earlier, the generic 3-24 letter laid out some information relevant to operating 25 experience, evaluation in areas such as electric power NEAL R. GROSS
}'
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS I
1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON. D c. 20006 (202) 232 4000 1
J
c
.j s
-4 28
~
1 where our studies had shown that these are important j
j
('
for interactions are 2
systems and the possibilities a
3 large as in support - systems such as service water f
'4' systems and air systems.
Again; this was sort of a 5
caution to licensees-that these events. in these 16 categories should be looked at carefully.
- j; 7
We also identified some areas in which the 8
design - relied excessively on a supposedly. f all safe:
9 design and that people should be. 'caref ul that. f ail-
~
10
- safe designs are really fail safe.
And there are also 11 some cases in which the design kind of assumed that 12
.there was a preferred failure mode and that it really-(%
13 didn't consider conditions of where you didn_'t get-a 14 failure mode, you may. have gotten only.
partial' a
1 15 failure and those should be looked at.-
16
- Then, the last-area-was. similar to 17 electrical power, instrumen't and control power 18 supplies, an important area where system: interactions:
19 can easily occur.
43
};
20
' COMMISSIONER REMICK:-
Warren,_ you= mentioned 21 the updating or revision of the standard review. plan-22 so people would. know how to. do L this.
What is the-i 23 status of that specifically -with the evolutionary-24 plants under review right now, like ABWR7 Are 25 people -
and I guess that',s not'a research question, NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRAN90 RIDERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
. ASHINGToN, D.C. 30006
--(302) m W
. (soe) 334 4433 u _
r
- ~ -
a L
[s.
t 29
-.l l1 that's an NRR question in this case.
Are people
- *~
e 2
looking at that type of. thing.in their review of ABWR cl 3
and System 80+7 I
4 MR. THADANI:
I don't expect to believe the-5 status.of the standard review plans, but;in fact-the 6
staf f. reviewing the.- ABWR and other ALWR designs 'is u.
7 familiar.with the resolution of A-17.and that is being 8
factored in in the review.
9 COMMISSIONER ' REMICK:
Do you know if ' they
.i 10 found anything of any significance?
11 MR. THADANI:
I don't know the answer to j
12 that.
J+
13 MR. MALSCH:
There is a requirement in Part j
(
14 52 that: these species' of unresolved saf ety : questions j
15 actually be addressed in the application for design
~
16 certification.
17 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
And-that's the broader
[
(
18 question of generic issues in ' general,- which I was i
y 19 going to ask at some point.
'{
- q 20 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
I just had~a-general i
21 quest:lon about -
picking up on that point.
I gather 22' for the GSIs, that at some point in the process of 23 analyzing what the prioritizing the issue and 24 assessing.what the fix should be, you go t h r o u g h. a-'
25 cost benefit analysis - that may lead you to 'the NEAL R. GROSS a
CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
~ 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N W..
(202) 234 4433
- WASHINGTON. D C. 20006 '
-(202) 232 8000
4 o
.C 30
- i i
conclusion for the existing generation of plants that
. :~
2 are subject to that issue that you do this / but not
~
3 that.
'4 I gather the,ACRS has-raised in the past'the 5
question of how'you approach 'an issue for the new 6
generation of plants where the cost -benefit balance-4 7
may be 1 struck dif f erently.
The resolutions that.you.
I B
set
- forth, I gather,. reflect the cost benefit h
9 determination for the existing generation.
How do you.
10 go through a process of evaluating whether that j
i 11 particular fix or_something else in addition to'that i
12 might.be the more appropriate approach?
13 DOCTOR MINNERS6 Well, we had a meeting with' 14 NRR, if I understand what you're askingi.on this'very l
I 15 approach and we ' re-trying to _ develop a p r o c e s s.. b y -
P 16 which we're assured that ~ these generic issues are 17 brought forward and identified in future plant 18 reviews.
We don't'have that developed yet, but we're 19 working on that.
20 MR. TAYLOR:
-I think we'11 -- I want to_say 21 more about it --
r 1
22 MR. THADANI:
In fact, the designers are-i 23 expected to address each medium and high p'riority.
[
24 generic safety issue as well as the unresolvedtsafety I
25 issues.
We are, in NRR, developing procedures, : step -
.i NEAL R. GROSS J,
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRitERS
'5 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N W -
(20E) N WA8MINGToN,D.C.20006 -
(gN) 2336 -
31 s
1 by step, as to how we are going to review the
(
2 submittals that we expect ' to receive from the 3
designers, vendors and EPRI and so on on these issues.
4 That's the process we're in, currently developing 5
thosa procedures.
6 MR. HELTEMES:
Commissioner Curtiss. I think 7
part of the answer to your question really is the cost 8
benefit analysis.
Often times when you look at an 9
issue such as the backfit analysis, you cannot back 10 fit in on a plant, but_it is a good thing to do.
And 11 generally what we'll do is forward fit it to all 12 future plants.
We did that for the SRP through a 13 regulatory guide.
So it's not a backfit issue, but
(,
14 it comes a forward fit for all future plants.
That's 15 typically a result that will come out of a generic 16 issue resolution.
17 DOCTOR MINNERS:
In fact, the next USI is 18 that situation.
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Let me sharpen up the 20 question just a little bit.
I gather where you decide 21 that a fix is cost beneficial for a GSI, that 22 evaluation is based upon an assessment for the 2J existing generation of plants and the fix that you set 24 forth for that GSI reflects that cost benefit balance 25 hat you have struck.
When we direct the applicants NEAL R. GROSS -
CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 0030 Lk
i
. s.
.c 32.
1 for design certification in Part 52'to address' medium w
(. :,
2 and high priority. issues, is.it that fix.that they're-3 to-address or do we envision that the cost - benefit v
11 4
balance might be struck differently.than the fact that t
5 these are p1' ants that are still on the' drawing board?'
f.
6 MR. THADANI:
There are ; examples that go 7
both ways and'you,might recall we have discussed some q
8 specific generic -issues and let me use ATWS-as an 9
example, unresolved-saf ety ' issue A-9.
For the ABWR-10 design, the proposal is' to' provide diversity in the 11 SCRAM system itself which clearly goes beyond what's.
12 required by 10 CFR 50.62, I believe, is'the ATWS rule, c
13 A similar situation exists for. some other-(.
14 important safety issues, such as station blackout.
15 The designs incorporate-alternate A C. p o w e r s o u r c e,.
16 generally diverse, which is not necessarily. the 17 solution adopted by operating reactors because of cost 18 considerations.
f 19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
It's fair to say they.
20 address the problem instead of the.fix per.se.
21 MR. THADANI:
They do,'yes.
That's-exactly 22 right.
23 MR. TAYLOR:
That's the idea.
Now, I.think.
24 in one of these subsequent briefings on'the design, we-
.I' 25 can bring some examples to the table --
- NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoRTIRS AND TRANSCRISERS 1333 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W. z j'
(302) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, DA 20006 '
- (302) 239 4000 p
y -
F L:._
s
- 33
- +
1 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
' p; and give you 'some examples
~
2 MR. TAYLOR:
3 where the cost to backfit wasn't there, but it's I
4 certainly' a good idea'to fix-in the next that's o
in 5
part - of trying to do it, if.it's. cost beneficial i
6 the future and the applicants.are treating it that-7 way.
,q.
~'
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
All right.
Thanks.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:. Let's proceed.
10
, COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Just betore we leave 11
+his, it seems to me that what we 're '. really -talking' 12 about are really hardware' matters,' aren't they?
' {.,
13 You're not really including humari f actors. --
14 DOCTOR MINNERS:
In this study.,
it's 15 considerations of hardware.
16 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I know that's a whole 17 different area, but it'is part.of.the-system and some 18 of the problems are a breakdown in the. human factors
. 19 part of the system, coupled together with hardware 20 considerations.
21 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes, sir.-
A number of ' the -
22 generic issues come - directly from the human fa'ctors 23 program plan.
When.that pinn was published, about 30 24 issues were integrated into the generic issue program t
25 as a result of looking at the - potential issues-NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANBCRIBER$
1323 RHoDC 18LANO AVENUE, N.W.
- (30s) 3m WASHINGTON, D.C. 30005 l
- (act) 239 4000
,Q
n 3
34 I
associated with human factors.
t-2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
The other thing is. I 3
take it that when analyses have been done, they've 4
really been done looking at a plant in normal 5
operation or something of that sort with everything 6
functional and then looking to see what the 7
interactions might-be in a breakdown of something 8
that's normally functioning.
9 But what about situations such,as when the 10 plant is in e refueling outage or something of that 11 sort?
We're seeing examples of some concern in that 12 mode of operation.
Do you think there's any 13 additional things that ought to be looked at in that
(
'i 14 situation that we haven't paid attention to when we're 15 looking at systems interactions?
16 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, we had a generic 17 issue which resulted in a generic letter sent out on 18 changes during shutdown.
Okay.
Mid-loop operation is 19 the jargon used.
That was supposedly supposed to take 20 care of most of the problems.
In addition to that,'
21 there is a program that's now being worked on, and 22 it's basically a PAR, to look at the risk during I
23 shutdown.
It's supposed to take care of as a PAR of 24 system interactions.
(
25 MR. TAYLOR:
In fact, the event that you're NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, DC 20006 (202) 232 8000
.c 35 1
obviously referring to.is one of the reasons we' wanted v'
2 to look in'more' depth at this event and set out an IIT' 3
-and made that decision.
We want=to learn as muchias 4'
we can f rom - this experience i where a plant is.in an 5
- outage, they did - loop operation and - we want to.
6 understand the elements that were at play at this.
7 example.
And it may be out'of this effort will come a 8
new issue of some type that we will try to address.
9 Obviously, they all get some in-depth looks 10 and feedback from the. industry itself because they run 11 the outages and they = have to do those things.
But ircumstances where 12 they present some very peculiar c
(
13 equipment is down.
14 MR.
HELTEMES:
The generic issues seem to 15 come in batches, just what Jim was talking about.
The 16 Davis-Besse event, 1985, was an IIT resulting -in ~34 17 new generic issues that were identified as a result of 18 that. event.
And so, out of the event of the current 19 investigation, if you will, it may very well turn out y
20 there's some generic issues identified.
21 MR.
THADANI:
I might add that we have 22 resolved the issue, mid-loop operation issue, and the 23 concerns that we had.
That addresses part of the risk'
[
t 24 during shutdown.
And as Warren noted,- a couple of
/
'(,
25 studies are ongoing in terms'of risk assessment during I
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRAi48CRISERS 1323 RHoot ISLAND AVRNUE, N.W.
M 3344433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 1302) 232 0NW I
4' O
36 1
shutdown, modes 4, 5,
and 6 of operation.
(
2 We are also looking at the technical 3
specifications.
As you probably know, there may be a 4
need to modify what our requirements are today during 5
shutdown operation.
An-expectation i t, that these 6
three programs together will lead to resolving
'7 whatever concerns, any concern there might be with 8
shutdown operation issues.
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
All right.
Let's proceed.
1 10 DOCTOR MINNERS:
(Slide)
Could I have slide 11 11, please?
12 The second USI we resolved this year was on 13 seismic design
- criteria, and we reported our 14 resolution to the Commission last September, and we 15 issued standard review plan revisions in August.
And 16 so there are new requirements, but they're only for 17 future plants, except where plants have some backfit 18 requirements.
19 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
And who are they?
20 DOCTOR MINNERS:
They are Watts Bar, 21 Callaway, Wolf Creek, and Harris.
And they were 22 required to look at the seismic design of their above 23 ground vertical tanks, which we were unsure of whether 24 that design -- you can see how a vertical tank could 25 be subject to earthquake damage.
And we had looked at NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE NW.
(202).M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 4000
+
.3_
i h :- ['
u 37-r, 1
this.
1 1
2
, We - thought -that plants licensed af ter '84 0
requirements.
3
.were -. pretty' well covered by our.- design 4
~USI 846 looked at 70' of the older plants',.: but there:
'S was a gap in the period between the' late '70s and 1984 6
when these plants were licensed,Eso we wanted-'them to 7
look at this issue.
And I understand; I've-been told-8 that this -~ has been completed on all of those plants 9
except Watts Bar.
10 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Thank you.
11 DOCTOR MINNERSi The-SRPs,~as I saidi only 12 apply to future plants..
So here's a case in which-we
(
13 did our value' impact analysis.and found that it wasn't.
14 worthwhile to backfit all'- of this to current - plans,
15 but it was certainly cost-beneficial or cost effective-16 to do it for future plants.
And this was mostly in it ' was all in seismic design methods, 17 seismic 18 conservatism in the design methods, how to use elasto-19 plastic methods in the analysis, how to develop site-20 specific earthquake spectra, how to use non-linear 21 structural dynamic analyses.
And also, the _ toughest 22 issue was sort of structure interaction, and the issue
'3 23 is somewhat delayed in~ resolution because we had some 24 research that was being done in Taiwan with the 25 Taiwanese.
And we got the results of-that research NEAL R.' GROSS court REPORTERS AND TRANSORitERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(3 g IB W 435 WASHINGTON, O C.2000b (SDB) 330 0000 b
38 1
1 and there was quite a process trying to decide among d
2 the experts what that research really meant and how we 3
should apply it.
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Have the revisions to 5
the standard review plans for this been completed?
6 DOCTOR MINNERS:
They were issued in August
'7 of
'89.
8 The third USI we resolved last year was 9
safety implications of control systems.
And again, we 10 reported this to the Commission in August of
'89, and I'll use the word 11 a generic letter which put 12
" requirements" on licensees was issued in September of f
13
'89.
This issue really focuses around the question of 14 overfill of either the reactor pressure vessel of BWRs 15 or the steam generator of PWRs, and it was postulated 16 that overfill could cause water to go into the steam 17 lines and fail the steam lines and that could cascade 4
18 to the failure of steam generator tubes and you could 19 get into a bad situation.
20 So we reviewed all the plants and looked at f
21 their overfill protection designs, and generally we 22 found for most plants that they could be grouped.
We 23 had designs in which the overfill protection logic was 24 a two out of three, two out of four, or one out of
.25 twice logic.
And we felt that those designs were-NEAL R. GROSS COUNT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHooE ISLAND AVE 9JE, N W.
(202) M WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 232 4000
I o
39 1
acceptable if the overfill protection system was 3
separate from the main feedwater control system, and 3
if the protection system was tested.
And a generic 4
letter asked licensees to provide tech specs to verify 5
the operabilities of these systems.
6 The second group, which was also found 7
acceptable under certain conditions, were those plants 8
which had a one out of one, one out of two, or two out-9 of two logic in the overfill protection.
And again, 10 we found those acceptable if they were separate frem 11 the control system for main feedwater and testable.
12 And obviously, if it's a one out of one or a two out
(
13 of two system, you have to have a bypass, so they 14 would have to add a bypass to be able to test that 15 system at power.
16 Now the systems that were of concern were 17 those plants that had none of these.
And for BWRs, we 18 found that Big Rock, Lacrosse, and Oyster Creek did 19 not have an overfill protection system, so a generic 20 letter requested them to provide it.
21 For the Westinghouse plants, Yankee-Rowe and 22 San Onofre did not have a system for doing this.
And 23 in the B&W systems, they had an additional concern 24 because of the small capacity of their steam
('
25 generators, that we could get dry-out in the steam NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE. N W.
(SIE 2964433 WASHINGTON. 0 c. 20006 (202) 232 4 00 l
e 40 1
generator, which-is undesirable.
And so, we wanted an i
2 automatic system to initiate feedwater to seek more 3
assurance that the steam _ generators would not dry-out.
4 And that was a concern on plants like Oconee 1, 2,
and 5
3.
6 The other, in the CE plants, none of the CE 7
plants had automatic overfill protection, and we 8
required them to provide something, a testable system.
9 In addition to that, in looking at the CE plants, we 10 came across a kind of unrelated issue or a not 11 directly related issue.
In CE plants which had high 12 pressure injection systems which had a very low shut-13 off head, below 1275 psi, they might have to 14 depressurite their system to be able to take care of a 15 small break LOCA.
So we requested those plants to 16 look very carefully again at their emergency operating 17 procedures for small break LOCAs to assure that 18 operators knew how to depressurize their system, 19 either through the steam generators or PORVs or 20 whatever the method was, i
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
In the case of 22 overfill protection, was it mostly just taking 23 existing level instrumentation and developing a logic 24 and so forth to provide --
i 25 DOCTOR MINNERS:
No, some --
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPoRTOS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D C. 20006 (202) 232m P
.o e
41 it, or did some 0
1 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
(
2 have to provide new instrumentation?
3 DOCTOR MINNERS:
I think.some of the plants 4
didn' t. have anything, and they had to provide new 5
systems.
6 (Slide)
May I have slide 13, please?
7 Well, that's what we accomplished.
We still 8
have issues that we're working on.
We have scheduled 9
28 of the 32 issues, and we're working on getting the 10 schedule for four of them.
And this slide shows how 11 we expect to get the majority of them ' resolved this 12
- year, and we taper off and hopefully we'll have
(
13 everything cleaned up by
'94, 14 In addition to
'4 hat's on there, there are 15 another 32 issues to be prioritized.
Okay?
So.we 16 could expect, according to the preliminary screening, 17 another 11 issues that might be identified, as we 18 previously discussed.
19 (Slide)
May I have slide 14?
20 I'd like to discuss three issues that we're 21 currently working on, to give you some idea of the 22 things that we're working on.
23 The first is diesel generator reliability, 24 which is a high priority issue, which is really part i
25 and parcel with A-44, station black-out.
A station NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
m 3364433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6
42 o
1 black-out rule is being issued and licensees are i
2 working on it.
And one of the things you have to do 3
in station black-out is have a target reliability.
4 And we promised at the time we put out the rule that 5
we would put out guidance on how licensees should 6
assure that they're going to meet their target 7
reliability' reported by the rule.
And we are working-8 on a reg guide which would be issued under a generic 9
letter, which would give this guidance.
This reg 10 guide will endorse a NUMARC report, which will previde 11 this guidance.
12 This issue is a little delayed.
We were to 13 have it done, according to the five year plan, last 14 November, and obviously we're delayed.
And most of 15 this delay is because we have been working closely 16 with NUMARC and getting agreement between us as to 17 what their report should contain so that we can 18 endorse it.
And we had been promised by NUMARC 'that 19 they will submit a final report approved by them at 20 the end of this month.
And when that happens, then we 21 can issue our endorsing reg guide.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The June '90 date is 23 the date for the reg guide transmittal generic letter?
24 DOCTOR MINNERS:
- Yes, sir.
That's the 25 schedule now.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(202) 2344t13 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-4000
m p
e e
43 1
The second issue is radiation effects on 2
reactor vessel supports.
And as I said before, this 3
is one issue that started out as-low priority and was l
4 prioritized as such, and then we got additional-5 information from the HFIR reactor at Oak Ridge and 6
some people questioned our prioritization.
We went 7
back through it again and decided 'it was a high B
priority.
9 We have just started on this issue.
We just 10 issued a task action plan in January.
That's.
11 completed.
So we've just started out, and there's no 12 completion date as yet in ti.e five year plan.
Of 13 course it will be in the update, and we project quite 14I a long time to resolve this issue because it's a very 15 complicated issue.
16 We have done a preliminary assessment of l
17 what we believe is the worse case, which is Trojan.
l 18 And based on that preliminary assessment, we don't i
19 believe that there's any problem for plants in the 20 current license.
Forty year license is probably not a 21 problem, although there's a lot of uncertainty with L
22 that, and that's part of this issue is to investigate l
23 those uncertainties and gaps in knowledge and confirm 24 that that's the case.
To do that, we are doing a 25 multiple track.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE N W.
(ICE) 3364433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232M
x 1
One of them is to develop a new model of i
2 neutron-embrittlement, and we have this model 1
3 developed and. now we're trying to confirm it.
And 4
this would show, if confirmed, that the embrittlement 5
is a lot less significant than is indicated by 6
extrapolation of some of the data.
So it may turn out 7
that by this kind of an analysis we can conclude that 8
there's no problem.
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
What is it about 10 Trojan that would make it susceptible?
Is it the way 11 it's supporting the vessel or the size of the vessel 12 or --
13 DOCTOR MINNERS:
~I think it's neutron 14
- fluence, and it has a very strt.nge support system.
15 They had burned some holes in the support system so 16 that they could get inside with concrete, anil that has 17 given it a very poor stress configuration.
18 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I remember that.
19 MR. TAYLOR:
It's a combination, then, isn't 20 it?
21 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Yes.
And ac'tually, this 22 issue is not only the embrittlement.
There's also 23 some uncertainty of what a lot of the vessel supports 24 are, and that's part of the issue which really isn't t'.
25 an embrittlement issue.
It's just what kind of NEAL R. GROSS' i
count neponTens ANoTnANsensens -
Q23 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
l (202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-6000 j
a 45 1
materials we've got in these supports.
(,_
2 A second thing we're' looking at is to.say, 3
hey, maybe we don't even need these supports.
And 4
-because our original design was based on the 5
coincident earthquake and LOCA, we're doing analyses 6
now to see what the loads would be if we had a LOCA'or an earthquake separately.
And based on 7
a seismic 8
those analyses, the preliminary results seem to 9
indicate that because of the heavy-wall pipes that 10 support these vessels you don't
..v e n need the 11 supports.
So we're looking at that approsch.
12 The third approach is to say, hey, let's search out and see if there are any l
(
13 look at some 14 other fixes.
So we're going to contract to look and 15 see what other fixes, such as maybe we'll put heaters 16 on the supports to keep the temperature up so they 17 don't have this low temperature embrittlement.
And so 18 although the schedule date is
'94, if we're lucky and
}
19 some of this stuff works out, we may be able to a
- .'Q 20 resolve this issue much sooner than that projected
- 7 1
21
- date, t
/
22 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Before you leave that one, 23 let's go back and address the issue of how you become
As I read your paper there, it says 25 that "We think for 23 years there's no problem after NEAL R. GROSS I
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
\\
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. n006 '
(gar)233. econ
+
1 the start <of full-power operation."
We've got plants
].
2 out tiere that have been operating years.-
What do-3 you'mean by full-power operation?.Is that equivalent 4
' full-power hours, or is that -- there must be some-the' amount of time they '.ve -
5
. relationship between 6
actually been at full-power and=the embrittlement.
7 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well',
'I think people 8
usually take the conservative capacity factor.
And 9
I'd have to double check it, but I: think in;this case' 10 we assume an 80 percent capacity factor to. project out' 11 to the end.of life or-end of --
12 CHAIRMAN-CARR:
Well, you talk about based-
~
13 on a '30 year operating lifetime average, and we're 14-ta3 king about 4 0 ~ years '. now in plant life-extension.
15 And we're talking about the problem occurring'some 23 16 years after full-power operation, and we agree? it 's 17 going to -- we don't know yet.
I guess we agree, but 18 it looks like it may af f ect 'some plants.
I don't 19 understand why this is not a USI, I guess, based on i
20 your definition as you told me before.
It's obvious h
21 we're going to have to do.something to these plants.
l1 22 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, no.
I?think we think i?
23 that we~-- our' conclusion is-that we probably1will not-24 have-to do anything with these plants.
I think.that---
.f*,
25 at least, that's the tentative conclusion I've[ drawn-NEAL R. GROSS count nerontens ANotweenmens 1323 nMoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
{
(gy) 336 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 300ls 2
-(3(g)33Mago F
c
4 c.
47
'l from --
(>'
2 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, we raised it to high 3
priority because we thought we were. going to have to 4
do something to them.
5 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, it's a high -- well, 6
there's a lot of uncertainty.
That's the problem.
7 Okay?
8 CHAIRMAN CARR:
I guess that's why I don't 9
understand why it's not higher than high priority.
If 10 there's that much uncertainty and we don't really know 11j whether we've got a problem or not and we're about to 12 talk' about plant life extension, it seems like we 13 ought to get rid of that problem.
14 DOCTOR MINNERS:
- Well, I
think we are 15 getting rid of the problem.
We're working on it.
I 16 don't think we'd work on it any faster if it was a USI 17 than what we are now.
So as far as allocation of 18 resources, it's not going to make any difference.
19 CHAIRMAN CARR:
But what about those guys 20 that get to 23 years before '94?
21 DOCTOR MINNERS:
I guess I'm confused about 22 that.
t.
23 Bob, can you help me out on this?
24 MR. BAER:
I'm Robert Baer of the staff, and 25 a branch chief working on this issue.
I'm not sure, NEAL R. GROSS
+
CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) m
. WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20006 '
(302) 238 4e00 -
-. A
48 there may have been I
1 but I think you refer 2
don't know what you're looking at, but the initial 3
evaluation of Trojan was done for 32 effective full-4 power years, which would be 80 percent capacity for 5
the 40 year life.
And it looked like, on initial 6
survey, that there wasn't a problem up to that time.
7 Now as part of our looking at this issue, we 4
8 are going to consider to some degree what would happen 9
with life extension also.
But the initial evaluation 10 of Trojan -- if it says 23, I'm quite sure it should 11 have said 32.
12 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, I'm just looking at
(
13 the paper you gave me, which is NUREG 0933 --
- v..
14 COMMISSIONER ROBERTS:
Known as a typo.
"t i<
page 3.15-3.
And it 15 CHAIRMAN CARR:
u k
16
- says, "The approximate time at which the RVSS I
17 materials are believed to become susceptible to j
18 brittle fracture is 23 years after the reactor has 19 begun full-power operation.
Therefore, potential 20 susceptibility of the RVSS to brittle fracture exists 21 for seven years at the end of the reactor's lifetime, 22 assuming an average operating life of 30 years,"
23 MR. BAER:
- Okay, I guess I'm not familiar
]
24 with that calculation.
25 CHAIRMAN CARR:
That's the only reason I was NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W, ym WASHINGTON, D.C. 20%8 (202) 232m
^
1 4
4 ;,g I
curious.;.It's your paper.
. ('
2 MR.' TAYLOR: ' :I' guess we'll have to follow up:
3 on-that.
4 MR. BAER:
Yes, we'll have to, i
S MR.- TAYLOR:
We started out,very,- -very 6
concerned about this issue when'it first-came up, as 7
to what'was:its meaning.
Then we went to work and --'
8
' CHAIRMAN CARR:
I-agree.
It cameEup, went' 9
away.
It's come' back, and I just -- my curiosity is 10 based 'on his definition of a.USI as something we'may 11 have.to do to a plant.
It looks to me like we've got 12 a' potential here, and.I'was just trying to ge ti ' both 13 the definition - clear - in my. mind, A ~, and, B,
have we.
14 really got a problem before we get to plant life' 15 extension?-
16 MR. TAYLOR:
You.could start treating this 17 out as a high priority GSI.
And if the technology 18 gave you information that'you didn't expect,.you could 19 make this a USI.
Right?
That's. exactly-what we do.-
that's always a possibility.
The-work 20 We haven't 21 to date doesn't - push it that way, and we'll try to
-22 give you an explanation for that write-up.
23-Is that correct?
We haven ' t' made -- the 24 infornation and study. of _ this-prob 1'em to date hasn't 25 led us to say this is a.USI.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANtORisERS.
1383 RHoOf ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(308)394 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 '
(3gg) 333.eg00
50-4 1
DOCTOR MINNERS:
Everything seems to be
\\
2 leading us the other way, that it's not a USI.
3 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes, that's my understanding of 4
how we've been working this.
If we learn something we 5
didn't expect up to this point, we could very well 6
change this category --
7 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Well, the --
at any time during the 8
MR.
TAYLOR:
9 analysis.
10 CHAIRMAN CARR:
-- priority -- the section I 11 read was based on the priority determination.
And it 12 says the assumptions were this.
13 MR. TAYLOR:
Okay.
14 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Those assumptions I gave 15 you.
So you can clear that up for me, if you would.
16 MR. TAYLOR:
We will.
17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Just one other quick 18 question, Warren.
The three tracks that you've got 19 underway, are they proceeding in parallel?
Or do you J
20 intend to do --
21 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Yes.
22 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
And what's-the 23 schedule for development of the new model?
Is that a 24 pacing item now, or a --
i 25 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Yes.
The analysis is the NEAL R. GROSS COURT RENRTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(pge)m WASHINGTON, D C,20006 (302) 232-4000 i.
k.
51 4
J 1
pacing item, because we have~to: try:to get some data
(~N r
2 and that's going to take the' longest time, I think.
i 3
But again, we-haven't identified all' of the possible-4
- fixes, and maybe there's some real tricky.fix that 5
would take us longer to work out than we anticipate..
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
When you complete 7
your work on the new model and-if you conclude that'
~
8 you still have a problem'with neutron embrittlement, 9
is it envisioned at that point'that you would also be 10 able to turn to the work on the other two tracks and 11 know = whether the supports are required, first', and l
12 secondly what the potential fixes are if there need to r i 13 be fixes?
That at all come together at the 'same -' time?
14 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Yes.
The~. support work and 15 the other fixes, I think, are going to be'done before 16 the analysis.
17 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
18 CHAIRMAN CARR:-
Some of them require heaters 19 and some of them require coolers, dependent on where.
20 they are.
As he says, it's-a complex problem, 21 MR. TAYLOR:
We expect that analysis in the 22 second quarter, right?
That's what my own chart says.
23
- Well, the analysis, the consequences analysis is 24 expected, I believe.
(
25 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, I think you're going-NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRl8ERS
- 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(302) N WASHtNOToN, D.C. 20006 --
300)23fe
t O
52 1
to have a hard time.
We have a great big PERT chart 2
that puts this all together, and to look at simple 3
milestones is sometimes misleading.
It's a very 4
complicated problem.
We get stuff coming from here 5
and there and everywhere fitting together and it's 6
hard to --
7 MR. BAER:
This is Robert Baer of the staff.
o 8
Was the model you're talking about the irradiation 9
damage model?
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
The neutron 11 embrittlement.
12 MR. BAER:
Yes.
Okay.
There's been some r
13 work done both at Pacific Northwest Laboratories and k
14 at Argonne that looks at-irradiation damage 15 differently than the classical method.
The classical 16 method and most of the data was done -- was data from 17 high energy neutrons, above eight-tenths of an MEV, 18 and ignored the contribution due.to thermal neutrons.
19 HFIR is where this potential problem was identified, 20 has a very high thermal neutron flux and not much of a 21 fast neutron flux.
And when people first looked at 22 the data and looked at just the fast neutrons, they 23 saw much more embrittlement than would be predicted by 24 just the fast neutron.
[
25 The two models that have been developed NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
(202) M WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232-4000 f-.
L',
L 53 r- '
and I have a very 1
partially at the naticeal labs 2
bright young nuclear engineer working on this -- tries 3
to explicitly account for the effect of thermal 4
neutrons.
They don't cause nearly as much damage as 5
the fast neutrons, but in the support areas there is a 6
softer spectrum and a higher percentage of thermal 7
neutrons.
8 The models so far seem to take all the 1
9 existing relevant data that was done'at low f
10 temperature and bring them down to a single curve.
11 And based on the model development as of this moment, 12 it looks like where HFIR -- extrapolation of the HFIR
~ ~.
13 data said the ductility transition temperature would 14 shift about 300 degrees, it looks like it's more like 15 90 or 100 degrees.
16 But I do want to emphasize what Warren said, 17 that irradiation damage alone may not be the entire 18 problem.
There's big uncertainties of the materials.,
19 The fabrication process at Trojan, they have some-20 members that are bending, so there's a tensile stress, 21 which is what you'd worry about with this radiation 22 damage.
And as he indicated, they had cut route holes 23 in the box beams just near the point of maximum 24 stress, within ten inches or so.
So it's those sort
{
25 of uncertainties that exist, as well as radiation NEAL R. GROSS 1
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N W.
[
(202) N WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202)232 4000
1
[.
. ;.?
1 damage.
COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Thank you.
~
3 CHAIRMAN CARR:
All right.
Let's proceed.
4 DOCTOR MINNERS:
The last issue I'd like to 5
discuss is issue.105, interfacing systems-LOCA.
This-6 issue has had an interesting history.
'We did this 7
once back in
'81.
We sent orders to 32 PWRs'and 2 1
8 BWRs to provide testing for check valve, motor-9 operated valve configuration.
And this had been 10 identified in the WASH.1400 PRAs as.a risky situation 11 if you didn't do some inspection or surveillance of 12 your check valve.
You could heive the check valve f cil
/
13 and you wouldn't know it.
And - then if the motor-1 14 operated valve was opened up'and couldn't close again, 15 you were into some un-isolatable situation and.this' 16 could bypass containment.
17 All plants that were licensed after TMI were 18 reviewed in this way.and required to have testing.
In 19 fact, they were required to have more than that.
All 20 pressure. isolation valves, no matter what the 21 configuration was, as long as they isolated the-high-t 22 pressure coolant system.f rom-low-pressure systems,-
3 23 twere required to be leek-tested.
j 24 But that left the plants'that were licensed 3
{
' ~ '
25' before TMI.
-And even the 34 : plants' that we.sent NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRISERS 1313 RHoOE 18 LAND AVENUE. N W. ~
' (gar) m WASHINGTON, D.C. SalO6 (302) 23MADO
q x-55
!1-orders to, they had valves. and' other configurations.
3.
2 that isolated high-pressure from low-pressure.
' So. we-3 wanted-to look at those,. and we had worked' on this s-4 issue'a while and the value impact results-weren' t 5
coming out with much saying ' that this was cost 6
' beneficial.
7
.And I guess the ' issue.just kind of ~ slowed 8
down and was draggi'ng along with not much interest'.in 9
it when we began to getisome' precursors, in-fact'some i
10 foreign experience in which we thought wet saw 11 precursors to intersystem LOCAs.
And'I think mostly i
12 at Doctor - Murley 's initiative he had revived this.
(
13 issue, but with a different focus.
And the. focus was s
c 14 o n-human
- factors, as Commissioner Rogers-was f
15 discussing.
y 16 We had been looking at the hardware and~the j
1 17 interactions of the hardware.
And from'the-operating j
18 experience, we said, hey, human factors could-be-the 19 problem, both as initiators of the accidents and that 1
20 the operators are relied upon to take recovery 21 actions.
So in both senses, we are working on it.
l i
22 So because we changed the scope and expanded 23 the scope of this. issue a lot, we've revised the task-24 action plan.
And we just completed that. revision
(.
.+
25 again in January, and based on that we now think that f.c NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 232-6000 3
'36:
't.
1 we can get something out in October of
'91~,
which is a.
.(.
~
2 year and a half against the five year plan. date of 3
February of this year, as I.
- said, because; we ' ve-4 changed the-scope of the issp%
So here's another
'5 case of an-issue in wh % wc've found new information 1
6 which has made us. change our mind aad change our 7
course.
8 I
might note that the A C.R S is quite-
],
')
9 interested in this issue, and they have somewhat'of La 10 disagreement with us.
They would favor that=we take.
l 11 this issue and include it into the IPE program.
And v
12 we have responded to-them~and said, "Well, that might j
i 13 be appropriate, but until we get through with ~ our i
14 studies we don't really know what the course of action j
q 15 is on this issue and we're. going to continue with our.
l 16
' studies," which is not meaning that licensees J
..)
17 shouldn't look at this in their IPE.
I. mean, it's 18 inherent in the IPE that you should be looking at 19 intersystem.LOCAs anyway.
t 20 So that concludes. my discussion of the l
l 21 issues that we're working on.
22 MR. THADANI:
If I might just add.to that, q
23 as you know, NRR has been. looking at. some plants,-
24 particularly this interfacing system LOCA, to see high
- f. '
25 diameter piping and what the potential might.be -of
)
1 J
l NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS h
s' p-1323 RHODE ISUND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006'
.(202) 232 6600
)
i 1
e
p_
s-1 human actions, potentially initiating ' an event like g.-
V 2
this and so on.-
We've.taken-a'very thorough look,at a-3 plant and the conclusion seems ' to bel that,.- in fact, 4
humans dominate the risk from-inter system _ LOCA and 5
particularly ' that this risk might. be greater during 6
start-up and shutdown operations, when' people are-7 making changes.
8 As=you'might recall, IPE's scope is' limited ~
9 to analyses for at-power operation ~ and IPE does not I
10 include analysis during shutdown conditions.
-So_it i 's.
i l
1 11 important for us to proceed the way we're proceeding l
12 on this issue.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Well,.let me just pick i
14 up on that-point.
l 15
- Warren, you did indicate that it is i
16 important that licensees consider this as part of 17 their-IPE, realizing that in October or so you might 18 have a more definitive approach.
What have we done to 1
19 provide them with information we _ have now so that_
i 20 they're aware of this potential problem and might look l
j 21 at it from their perspective as part of the IPE?
Have j
i 22 we done anything to make them aware of the' fact.that j
r 23 they --
dq 24 MR. THADANI:
I know we had planned to issue d
?
d 25 an information notice, but I'd like to: confirm that.
'I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
. f (202)234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) M 1;
58 4
-1 Is Richard.Barrett here?.
t 2
MR.
HELTEMES:
Commissioner: Remick, we 3
certainly have publicized a number of events involving 4
inter system LOCAs, if you will, however minor they 5-may be.
We've also greatly publicized the foreign g
6 event.
So, our licensees have been f ed - ' continued
'7 information on operational experience - that, as Warren-8 mentioned, may serve as precursors to a more serious 9
event.
10 I know that's a broader answer than you-were 11 really looking for.
12 MR. TAYLOR:
Rich, can you answer that?
13 CHAIRMAN'CARR:
Would you identify yourself, 14 please?
l l
15 MR. BARRETT:
Yes.
I'm. Richard Barrett with 16' NRR.
17 We have - not issued any information to ' the -
18 licensees giving guidance on how to do the IPE-with 19 respect to IS LOCA any differently from the way in l-20 which it's traditionally done in PRAs.
We don't feel 21 a s' if we understand the problem well enough yet to 22 give them information of that type.
23 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
But isn't.it tr.le that 24 the best approach might not be through PRAs.
If we're 25 talking about human factors or other things, it seems NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCnlBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(302)234 4433
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 1 202) 232 6 b
g -.
s
59
' o 1
to me-that maybe-we' have through the information' 1~,
2 notices that 1 Jack mentions, have alerted licensees 3
that this p o t e n t i a 11_y = i s a problem.
All
-I ' m-.-
'4 interested in-is making sure that'when'they are'doing 5
the IPE - and - presumably doing walk-downs. and thinking 6
_ about-all - these, at least in the back of their head-7 they're thinking, "Is there anything'_at our particular 8
plant that we're particularly vulnerable from _ this 9
interfacing system LOCA?"
10 MR. TAYLOR:
We'll give you a listing; of :
11' what has happened.
We've talked a lot about this' 12 problem with the industry and the-utilities, but we'll i
13 give you a follow-up on that.
If more' is needed, 4
(
14 we'll do it.
The industry knows we're working on'this 15 issue.
1 16 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
'Could you say.a word j
17 or_two on why this is a GSI rather than a USI and the 18 thinking that went into that?
19 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, as I said, when. we 20 were working on it before,-it wasp'.t coming out even a 21 high priority.
I mean it was prioritized the high-22 priority, but as-we worked on it we found out if you 23 just looked at hardware, you couldn't really justify 1
24 very much.
So, I think that's an explanation why we
(.
25 weren't considering it back then as a USI.
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
J (202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 232M
g m
i 60 1
Now, since ' then, if we. f ocus on the human 4-2
-factor issues, I'm not sure that people have gone back 3
and reviewed it again.againot the USI criteria to.see 4
if it is a USI.
Okay?
I don't know how it would 5
stand against that.
6 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Your-determination on 9
7 this one right now is. based upon your initial review 8
though --
9 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Yes.
10 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
rather-than a re-11 review based upon the human factors dimension?
i 12 MR. TAYLOR:
We'll-look at that as-part of
/
13 looking at this.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
It might be helpful.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
It ceuld be.
16
-COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
17 MR. THADANI:
So far, we have looked at one 18 plant-from a human factors point. of : view.
It's our 19 intention to look at two more plants and I think after 20 that'we'll-have a better picture of the issue.
21 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Okay.
22 MR.
TAYLOR:
Mr.
- Chairman, that concludes 23 our briefing.
Te'11 respond to any. questions.
24 CHAIRMAN-CARR:
. Commissioner Remick?
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Just a couple.
One,,I NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSORIBERS 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202)232 6000
[
' =
+
- .o r.;
.1 a
F
- 61"-
1,;
1 take-' the ~ opportunity Lto, ' congratulate Jack :
l',
-1 might
(;
2 Heltemes on hi's ' lnew :c position' because 1 certainly ' the 3 2
P 3
- Of fice ' of Research isL very important and?I.know that 14 Jack-will-contribute = to: that-and be:.a big - help' to!
-5 Eric.
So, Icwould:like to' congratulate 1him on having.
'6
-that. chance to'do that..
7 I'd 'li k e ' -to' go back to. the. -
Marty.
P
.8 introduced: the subjectl of Part 52 "in; saying : that. a
~9
-generic issue should be' considered iD future standard 10 designs.
I ~~ just want-to. make.. sure ofm the ' answer ; LI 11 heard,'that/weLare, as part.5f-our'. review,Llo'oking;to ~
q 12
.see that people 1 are considering the' generic ' and
(
13 unresolved safety issues in;the designs'of the'plantsi l
~
14 under review?
15 MR. THADANI:
Yes.
16 COMMISSIONER-REMICK:! Okay..
17 MR.
THADANI:
Yes.
Medium and-high-18 priority.
19 COMMIS SIONER REMICK:
~ Medium and high'
]1 20 priority, yes.
Okay.
y'j 21 Another I found your discussion in some i
d 22 depth of severalof the topics particularly.of help, j
4 23
.'m o r e than perhaps t h e. s c h e d u l e r,- although the-
- l l
24 scheduler is important And looking to the fact that
.i
]
i-25 next year presumably ths number of issues still that j
l NEAL R. GROSS i
COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS
]
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006.-
(202) 232 4000
]
p.
c
.(_.
I we'11 be considering is even down further, it might be s
2 helpful just to give us a brief summary, the technical 3
summary of those remaining issues.
'.Not perhaps in the 4
depth you did on the several here, but to help remind 5
me anyhow what.some of these issues are.
Presumably 6
there will be fewer next year.
'7 MR.
TAYLOR:
It gives you more on the.
8 quality.
~
9 COMMISSIONER REMICK:- Right.
10 DOCTOR MINNERS:
Well, let me' try.
All of L
11 these issues and the prioritizations are documented in 12 NUREG-0933.
13 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Yes.
14 DOCTOR MINNERS:
So, you can look it up 15 there.
I think they have pretty good --
16 CHAIRMAN CARR:
There's about a two page-1 17 summary on each one of them.
l 18 DOCTOR MINNERS:
If you want more than that, 19 we can give you -- would you like to try'to read that 20 and --
21 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Maybe it's just I'm l
22 lazy, Warren.
1 1
23 DOCTOR' MINNERS:
I guess I'm asking what 24 different from that would y.ou.like to have?
(
25 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
I'd have to look at I
NEAL R. GROSS
- CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS t
1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202)2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 A 232 6
_j
E i;,.1
~
63-1 the NUREG again to see.
I just;found it helpful to go 0
--(s.
2 into some --
1 3
MR. TAYLOR:
.Some examples?
4 COMMISSIONER REMICK:
Some examples, yes.
5
~That's all.
6 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Roberts?
7 Commissioner Rogers?
8 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Yes.
I was just 9
curious.
I don't know if you really~ touched on it or
~
10 not.
What happens to those issues that get dropped 11 during the initial prioritization process after 12 they've been first identified?
What happens-to those?-
13 They've dropped from the rest-of your. procedures, but 14 where do they go and do they ever get' looked'at again?
15 MR. HELTEMES:
Well, they're maintained in 16 the NUREG-0933.
The drop is a conscious decision.
'17 It's a documented decision.
So, they're maintained 18 available for all.
By going to 933, you can find 19 them.
In case the issue comes up or a related issue 20 comes up, you can go back and s'ee what the decision 21 was and the basis for the decision.
So they're not 22 lost from visibility, but resources are not applied to
?3 them.
24 MR. TAYLOR:
Experience may make you revisit-25 it.
NEAL R. GROSS CoVRT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISI.AND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005 (202) 23;H000
64.
+
1 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Okay..
(.-
4-2 MR. TAYLOR:
One of the things that's a. big 3
feed is experience.
4 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
There is some way-of 5
going back and looking at those again?'
6 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes, sir.
7 MR.. TAYLOR:- The' experience, the operational.
8 experience may make --
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:
They're al1 ~ still in the 10 file.
11 MR, TAYLOR:
They're alive.
12 CHAIRMAN CARR:.
What we did with them and-13-why we - did it.
If it changes, we - know why we were 14 wrong.
15 MR. TAYLOR:
That's right.
Experience may 16 tell us what we thought then was as good as we-had.
17 But we may have to go back and reopen --
18 COMMISSIONER. ROGERS :
Have we gone back to.
19 any of those?
20 MR. TAYLOR:
Yes. ~Some of the staff ----
21 MR. HELTEMES:
Fifteen.is the example where 22 it was prioritized' low and as a low issue it would not 23 receive any resources.
24 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
Oh, at that point,'at 25 the initial prioritization?
NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
-(202) 232M
n.
e.
65~
1
-MR.
HELTEMES:
Ws, sir.
.(
2 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
I see.
3 MR. HELTEMES:
The initial prioritization.
4 The former prioritization was low, which would i..
5 indicate that-it would' go into the resolve category 6
and'no additional resources would' be applied to i t..
7 But'the new information from HFIR -- new 8-information --
9 CHAIRMAN CARR:-
I'm afraid to,.say I think 10 we've got a problem in' support structure.
11 COMMISSIONER ROGERS:
That was one that was
.i l
12 just dropped initially.
That was the --
i 13 MR. HELTEMES:
Yes, sir.
14 COMMISSIONER' ROGERS:
Okay.
Good.
Fine.
I 15 don't have anything else, other than-to say that I q
16 think it was an excellent briefing.
I really' thought l
17 we got a great deal out of it, i
18 CHAIRMAN CARR:
Commissioner Curtiss?
19 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Just one quick 4
.20 question on advanced reactors.
We'll-have an i
21 opportunity, I guess, in a couple weeks to look at'the ii 22 schedule of questions for that.
Focusing on these
,,j '
- n 23
- issues, are any of the medium 'and high priority L,
4}
24 generic issues what you'd consider to be pacing items a
25 now for the evolutior.ary reviews?
Are we on 'the NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHoDE ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 (202) 232 6 5
s 1
critical path for those?'
2 MR. TAYLOR:
Do you want to take a guess at 3
that or do you want to give an answer-later?
- 4 MR. THADANI:. I think I need to look into it.
5 to be-sure.
6 MR. TAYLOR:
I think we'll have to get back 7
to you.
8 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
Maybe at the briefing 9
later.
10 MR.
THADANI:
What we have asked,- and in 11 some cases we-have not received the assessment by, for
~
12 example, GE on some of the generic safety issues.
But 13
! need to look into it to give you' specifics.
{.
14 COMMISSIONER CURTISS:
If you could, take a 15 look_at two things.
One'. where we'_ve resolved the i
16 issue and where we're waiting _for submittals for the i
17 licensee and, two, where some of these issues, and.
1 18 particularly the high -- well, the high and medium are
$'j 19 the only ones to be addressed, but where those haven't
'it j
?.i t j
Jf ~
20 been resolved yet, if we're holding up action on the a
d l
Q 21 review of the vendor design pending resolution within i
4., e
' tj';
22 this. process, ' I guess I'd be interested' in knowing r4
$a.}
23 where --
+
d 24 MR. TAYLOR:
We can check that,
~
tj f' x i
25 MR. THADANI:
Okay.
4 NEAL R. GROSS -
C")URT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS l
1323 rho 0E ISLAND AVENUE, N.W.
(202) 2%M33 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006 -
(M) 232-6830 I
L
-]
re 67 s
1 COMMISSIONER 'CURTISS:
All right.
That's y
~ ll-I have.
2 a
3 CHAIRMAN lCARR:
Well, I'd like.to thank the 4
staff for an informative briefing.
It appears. the 5
Office of Research has an' ef f ective process in place 6
for identification, prioritization and tra'cking 7
resolution of generic safety issues.
-It also. appears-y 8
we ' re ' making progress in resolving generic safety.
l 9
-issues and I commend the staff for.your work.
10 It's-important.that once an issue is 11 resolved by the Office of Research there's close 12 coordination between the Office of Nuclear Reactor.
f 13 Regulation and the regions when new requirements - are i
14 identified, in the resolution of an issue and to 15 ensure proper imposition and implementation by the 16 licensees.
17 I. challenge the ' staff to resolve the 18 outstanding generic safety -issues on the schedules 19 that have been provided to the Commission today.
20 Do any of my fellow. Commissioners have n
i 21 additional comments?
..y.
a' fj; 22 If not, we stand adjourned.
.g.
fj 23 (Whereupon,. at 11:24 a.m.,
the above-NR 24 entitled matter was adjourned.)
W
("'-'
25 Q
.l NEAL R. GROSS hk' COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS i7 1323 RHoOE ISLAND AVENUE. N.W.
(202) 234 4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006.
(202) 232-6000 g:
i
s 4
CERTIFICATE OF TRANSCRIBER This is to certify that the attached events of a meeting of the Unite'd States Nuclear Regulatory Commission entitledt i
TITLE OF MEETING!
PERIODIC BRIEFING ON~ PROGRESS OF RESOLUTION i
0F GENERIC SAFETY ISSUES-PLACE OF MEETINGt ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND DATE OF MEETING:
MARCH 29, 1990 were transcribed'by me. I further certify that said transcription, is accurate and complete. to the best of my ability, and that.the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing events.
fl A rA
-v Reporter's name!
Peter Lynch t
i 9
6
- (
W F
ib
'k s
l
(
1 NEAL. R. GROSS COURT ttpoette$ AND TeANSCeltte$
1323 RHODE ISLAND AYENUE, H W.
(202) 234-4433 WA$MINGTON, D.C.
2000$
(202) 232-6000
COMMISSION BRIEFING ON I
PROGRESS AND STATUS OF RESOLUTION OF GENERIC SAFETY. ISSUES i
BY RES l
C. J. HELTEMES, JR'., X23720 W. MINNERS l
R. EMRIT MARCH'29, 1990 3
.I i
i
~l
?
i a
7, 4
4
.f
't 4,,?
t e
OUTLINE e
OVERALL PERSPECTIVE PROCESS HISTORY PROGRESS SINCE110/21/87. BRIEFING STATUS AND-FUTURE ACTIONS.
d e
STATUS OF SELECTED GSIS r
GSI B-56, DIESEL GENERATORzRELIABILITY
.a:
'GSI 15, RADIATION EFFECTS.ON REACTOR VESSEL SUPPORTS ii GSI 105, INTERFACING SYSTEMS LOCA l.
p.
?.i '
3 u
a
(!.
li E
N s
I L
l
~.
c-1 i
e e
s t
t 4
i aI i
I' 5;_
.E E
1 I
i "a
s t
s g--
s --
e s
C 5
O 5
. s c
c g
3 c
g E
m r
r l
E.
l e.
^
e l-l l
4 5
/
4 4
4
(
[
3 C.
4 h
4 1
w m
w e
w.c
<-v,-~,
,em,w
,.w e,-
-~ -. --
-.----a--
t 5
. PROCESS e
INITIAL' SCREENING PERFORMED.TO DETERMINE NEED FOR PROMPT ACTION e
PRIORITIZATION EVALUATIONS ARE PEER REVIEWED e
PROGRESS OF ALL GI RESOLUTIONS TRACKED'IN GENERIC ISSUES MANAGEMENT-CONTEDL SYSTEM-(GIMCS) - REVISED QUARTERLY:
o PRIORITIZATION AND RESOLUTION 0F ALL'GIS DOCUMENTED IN NUREG-0933 - REVISED SEMI-ANNUALLY
' ?
t l'
i k
i
g 4
P
?
- T i
IllSTORY 1
e PRIORITIZATION STARTED.IN 1981 WITH 511 ISSUES-e 261 SUBSEQUENT ISSUES' IDENTIFIED
~
e 772' TOTAL ISS'UES' IDENTIFIED.AS OF 3/29/90 a-T k
4 3
l
' 4,
'a-P f
3 e
c D
SUMMARY
BY ISSUE TYPE 10/21/87 5/12/88 '4/25/89 3/29/90-SAFETY ISSUES 690 689 690 697-f NON-SAFETY 1SSUES
_hl 44 45 75
- M M-iM-ZZZ.-
h V
t k
5 e
- y.
~;
t
~
i i
Y'.
i i
'i I
STATUS OF SAFETY ISSUES' 10/21/87 5/12/88
- 4/25/89-3 /29 /9'0 L RESOLVED 569 (82%)--584 (85%) 610-(88%) 633:(91%)
TO BE RESOLVED 121 (18%) I M (15%) _M (12%)
64 '-
(9%)
TOTAL:
6M 6M M
4 i
1 s
,T e
1 i
' ~
6 j
e
- .1 1
' s-r 4
1 l
STATUS OF SAFETY ISSUE RESOLUTION 10/21/87 5 /12 /88 c 4/25/89 Z1 3/29/90 i
PRIORITIZED LOW 25 24 24
+2
=26 PRIORITIZED DROP 62 66 73
+5 78-
~
INTEGRATED W/0THER ISSUES 119 121-122
+4?
126-RESOLUTION DEFINED'IN NUREG-0737
- B8 88 88 0
88.
RESOLVED ISSUES 275 Z85
- 303-
+12-11E SUB-TOTAL:
E6@ (+15) 584-(+26) 510 121 633 N
s h
7 s
a f
6 e
J.
't 5
1 ISSUES STILL TO BE RESOLVED 10/21/87 l5/12/88 4/25/89 3/29/90:
USIs 9
9 3
0 HIGH 32 28 20 16 MEDIUM 16 12, 13 9
NEARLY-RESOLVED 12 11 8
7 T0-BE PRIORITIZED E2 RE-15 12 TOTAL::
121 1Q1 B.Q 6h 1
L
)
i Y
- r-m 8
v
n
'?
e
- c i
I i
3 USis RESOLVED
. l e
A-17:' SYSTEMS' INTERACTIONS'IN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
~
o
-A-40: ~ SEISMIC. DESIGN CRITERIA e
A-47:
SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROLLSYSTEMS-j i
9
\\ r.
+
h
.c--
r
+
r e
~ k A-17:
SYSTEMS-' INTERACTIONS IN' NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS e
GENERIC LETTER 89-18 e
No NEW REQUIREMENTS i
e
(
O 10
7 V
?
)
4 f
A-40)
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA f
i o'
STANDARD REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS l
e NEW REQUIREMENTS
- s n
\\.
i 4
'i 6
4 h
n.
\\
Y l
i F
A-47:
SAFETY IMPLICATIONS OF CONTROL SYSTEMS j
e SECY-89-255.
U e
GENERIC-LETTER 89-19 e
NEW REQUIREMENTS.
t 7
1 i
i j,
-4 i
k I
12 a
a
i f
l i
i
-s
'i FUTURE ACTIONS t
,s 1
e :-
28 GSIS': ISSUES SCHEDULED TO BE. RESOLVED BY FY 94 e
4.'GSIS WITH SCHEDULES.TO BE DETERMINED.
i e
RESOLUTION'BY FISCAL YEAR
-t FY.90 FY 91 FY 92-FY 93_
FY'94 IE j
16
'6 5
0 --
1 4
t-r
.i 13 l'
O l
5 1
B-56:
DIESEL GENERATOR RELIABILITY (HIGH PRIORITY)
ACRS/CRGR REVIEW 5/90 FEDERAL REGISTER NOT!cE 6/90 i
5-YR PLAN DATE 11/89 i
I 14
F o.
o.
1
)
i
-d 4
15:
RADIATION EFFECTS ON REACTOR VESSEL SUPPORTS (HIGH PRIORITY) i ACRS/CRGR REVIEW OF DRAFT s
TECHNICAL RESOLUTION 10/93 ACRS/CRGR REVIEW OF FINAL TECHNICAL RESOLUTION 01/54 FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE 03/94 5-YR PLAN TO BE DETERMINED l
e i
s h
i l
~.
'O
, e 'r
+
i
, 4 l
E' 105:
INTERFACING SYSTEMS LOCA (HIGH PRIORITY)
REVISE TASK ACTION PLAN 01/90C-ACRS/CRGR REVIEW
'08/91-ISSUE GENERIC LETTER 10/91-5-YR' PLAN 02/90-16
e MMddd ddWA%%%%%%%d%@d%%% tvd %g%%f%%%gggg 1
a TP.AHSMITTAL TO:
Y Occument Control Desk, 016 Phillips i
l ADVANCED COPY TO:
The Public Document Room l!
M!// /90 CATE:
3 FROM:
SECY Correspondence & Records Branch l
lt I
Attached are copies of a Comission meeting transcript and related meeting i
document (s). They are being forwarded for entry on the Daily Accession List and placement in the Public Document Room. No other distribution is requested or g!
required.
Fl Meeting
Title:
[2A_t Ah b A
/7 4 +/enM
$V Meeting Date:
O/M/?O Open /
Closed I
i gi Item Oescription*:
Copies Advanced DCS
,8
- Copy, to POR o
!,j.
- 1. TRANSCRIPT 1
1 h)/St & J k:
- ~
/
p
=
[
2.
+
t c
d~
3-3.
5s c
b' 4
1-i 5.
5 i
I i-Ei k
h 5-r
- e i
I h
- PDR is advanced one copy of eacn document, two of each SECY paper.
!I C&R Branch files the original transcript, with attachments, without SECY j8 p[
!j papers.
]-
I h
I k-
^6hW6666h'h'6hWh'h'h'66hn'h5